That startup time test seems a little sus for BTRFS
Yes, it seems like there could be a weakness there, unless it’s just a fluke. The test has a background I/O load designed to stress BFQ I/O.
Yes, I’m surprised it is so bad considering btrfs was close to the other fs on most benchmarks.
It’s not just startup time, it’s startup time with heavy background I/O
Very much so.
I want to support pharonix but damn, chill out ob the ads. Especially the video overlays on mobile. It is unusable without an ad blocker, while at the same time saying they are ad supported.
I would like to help, but ouch.
Premium subscription is ad free, It’s easy to judge but maybe that’s what he needs to do to make a decent income.
But yeah some financial transparency would be nice, maybe have a fundraiser where raising X amount of money would make it ad free.
If you’re from the EU you can just reject all cookies and all ads disappear.
Kent just made a reply on this.
TL;DR: Fast on his machine. The reason of the difference is unclear though.
Would help if they have a repo with a test suite anyone can run, like in science making it easy to reproduce results.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Bcachefs has long been in development by Kent Overstreet as a new open-source file-system born out of the Linux kernel’s block cache code.
For about a decade now it’s been in the works as a modern copy-on-write file-system with aims to compete with the likes of Btrfs and ZFS.
After it was merged I built a fresh Linux Git build with the Bcachefs file-system driver enabled.
I tried a few different combinations like with different partition setups and other options, but ultimately was stuck with this “numerical out of range” errors each time regardless of what I tried.
If there is sufficient interest from readers, as follow-up articles may be multi-disk testing and looking at other advanced features of Bcachefs.
But for today’s article and just getting an idea where this experimental file-system is currently at, it was a single disk and testing defaults for some sane representation.
The original article contains 563 words, the summary contains 148 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Bot can’t detect multi-page articles eh
